Find definition

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the search is LSP-backed or index-backed, what 'supported source files' includes, how results are formatted, or any performance or scope limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere rather than serving as a standalone strength.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It omits language scope, result shape, and distinctions from sibling definition tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters. The description only loosely implies the 'name' and 'paths' parameters ('by name', 'across supported source files') and says nothing about the 'kinds' enum or path semantics, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb and resource ('Find symbol definitions') plus scoping ('by name across supported source files'). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as lsp_definition or find_indexed_definition, leaving the agent to guess which definition-finding tool to use.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention alternatives (lsp_definition, find_indexed_definition) or any prerequisites, so the agent must infer when this search-based tool is preferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.